So President Obama says he�s for more offshore oil drilling.
Does he really mean it? Would it matter if he did?

Addressing the latter question first, consider President
George W. Bush called for offshore drilling in June 2008, when gasoline prices
hit $4 per gallon and Congress was less Democrat-controlled than today.

Nothing happened � well, that�s not exactly true.

Offshore drilling advocates were ecstatic in July 2008 when
they thought a deal had been reached with green groups to permit drilling off
Santa Barbara, Calif. � the first since the January 1969 oil spill there.

New Hampshire Union Leader editor Andrew Cline gushed in a
July 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed: �When an environmental group formed for the
sole purpose of opposing offshore oil drilling warmly embraces a plan to drill
off its own coast, you know something important has changed in our culture;
Americans have recognized that offshore drilling is largely safe.�

But less than a week later, the greens wrote the Journal to
correct the record: �(T)o be accurate, the (op-ed�s) title should have read
�Environmentalists Secure End to Oil Development� ... The agreement struck ...
is remarkable because it sets a fixed date for the termination of existing
offshore and onshore oil production facilities in Santa Barbara County. We see
this agreement as a direct complement to our support for the federal oil
moratorium. Just as we need to say �no� to new oil development, we must put an
end to existing development if we are to protect our coast from the risks of
offshore oil and gas development, and protect society from climate change.�

Despite the �agreement� and approval of offshore drilling by
the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, the greens subsequently got the
California State Lands Commission to deny the offshore leases and then, in July
2009, got the California Assembly to block Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger�s proposal
to revive offshore drilling.

Last December, the Obama administration actually granted
Shell Oil leases to drill three exploratory wells in Alaska�s Chukchi Sea. But
claiming a shoddy approval process, the leases are being challenged by green
groups in the enviro-friendly 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Without wondering
whether the Obama administration set Shell up for frustration, my money is on
the greens in that venue.

The lesson here is that the greens oppose, and will use every
tactic possible on the local, state and federal level to prevent, offshore
drilling, regardless of what emanates from the Oval Office.

But then, there are many reasons to question the sincerity of
Obama�s rhetoric in the first place.

Despite campaign rhetoric about supporting more drilling,
last fall the Obama administration canceled drilling leases in Utah previously
granted by President Bush.

The leases were denied for the flimsiest reasons, including
possible damage to the habitat of the sage grouse and avoiding the dust and
noise pollution from drilling.

Next, and most important, President Obama needs both
Republican and moderate Democrat support to get a much sought after
cap-and-trade bill through the Senate.

Right now, South Carolina�s Lindsey Graham is the only
Republican interested in cap-and-trade. He wants to include increased oil and
gas production and nuclear power.

President Obama no doubt hopes pro-oil drilling rhetoric will
also help him win the support of other Senate swing votes, including Lisa
Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mary �Louisiana Purchase� Landrieu, D-La.

Finally, while announcing his drilling proposal, Obama spent
the bulk of his time talking about how we need to use less oil and wean
ourselves off oil altogether.

He spent little time talking about producing more oil. He
limited his remarks to a proposal merely for more oil �exploration� � not to
increasing production and supply.